Stick With President Bush In November (Good Reasons NOT To Stay At Home) (My Title)

Worldnetdaily.com ^ | 01/31/04 | Henry Lamb

[goldstategop]

The most serious threat to President Bush's second term is not a Democrat; it is the growing mass of disenchanted Republicans who are accepting the proposition that there is little or no difference between the two major parties.

"Where are they going to go?" says a well-placed Bush operative. "You know they'll never vote for Dean or Kerry. And there's no Ross Perot on the horizon."

Where will they go? Nowhere. And that's the point. Republicans, especially the more conservative variety, are likely to stay home in droves. So far, the Republican strategists appear to be oblivious to this possibility.

Perhaps conservative Republicans expected too much too soon from a Republican administration. The Democrats had eight years to fill the agencies of government with activists from their special-interest groups. It is true that President Bush quickly dumped the most egregious of these types, whose positions are political plums. The underlings hired by the political appointees, however, are protected by civil-service regulations and cannot be fired, or even reassigned, without non-political justification.

The disappointment of conservatives goes much deeper and questions the fundamental philosophy which guides the administration. After eight years of watching the Clinton-Gore team march the United States directly into the jaws of a global socialist government, Bush supporters expected a screeching halt and a major course correction.

Conservatives cheered Bush's withdrawal from the Kyoto Protocol – a screeching halt and a major course correction – while socialists abroad and Democrats at home condemned the president.

When Bush defied the U.N. Security Council, and created a multi-national coalition to eliminate Saddam Hussein, conservatives split, some cheering the action, some joining the Democrats at home and socialists abroad who condemned the action.

The Patriot Act, the prescription drug program, the "guest worker" program, the so-called "free trade" programs and a half-trillion dollar deficit have left conservatives reeling, wondering why a Republican administration and Congress have produced results that look so much like what they would expect from a Democrat administration and Congress.

Consequently, many, many Republicans have thrown up their hands and have decided to either join some doomed third-party movement or simply stay home.

While this reaction may be understandable, it is not only self-defeating, it violates the first law of true believers: Never, never, never, never give up!

It is true that Republican hold the White House and a razor-thin majority in Congress. It is also true that the nation is divided, almost down the middle, between people who want to continue the Clinton-Gore path toward global socialist government and those who want to abandon that path and move the United States toward more individual freedom, free markets and voluntary cooperation among sovereign nations.

Rather than give up and stay at home, a better strategy may be for conservatives to realize that the election of President Bush in 2000, and securing a slim majority in Congress in 2002, is just the first step in a long journey. Conservatives should realize that it takes 60 senators to prevail over the Democrats' filibuster.

Rather than throw in the towel, conservatives might throw their effort into the campaigns of conservative candidates for the House and Senate, and for the state legislatures and county commissions.

The global socialist agenda moved into high gear after the fall of the Berlin Wall, aided dramatically by the progressive Democrats in the United States. The Bush election in 2000 disrupted that agenda, and to them, nothing is more important than removing the Bush obstacle. Conservatives who decide to give up and stay at home will be aiding and abetting the enemies of freedom.

A return to progressive Democrat leadership in the United States is a return to the Kyoto Protocol and U.N. control over energy use in the United States. It is a return to subservience to the United Nations – as Howard Dean says, to get "permission" from the U.N. before defending our nation. It is a return to total government control over land use, education and every other facet of life.

In 2000, conservatives barely got a foothold on the bridge of the ship of state. In 2002, conservatives began to get a grip on the wheel. In 2004, conservatives have an opportunity to bring on more hands and to permanently discharge some of the progressive Democrats who continue to fight desperately for control.

Democrats alone cannot regain control. If conservatives give up, throw in the towel and fail to show up for the November battle, the Democrats will win by default. Conservatives who truly believe that freedom is better than socialism, those who want freedom for their children rather than a world socialist government, will never, never, never, never give up. They will show up in November.

[RiflemanSharpe]

That is not the first time I have heard someone say this.

[goldstategop]

The existence of the welfare state has never troubled me. I think we should keep pushing for changes in the Medicare program and Social Security. I don't have any problems with taking care of seniors both cause they worked hard all their lives and they have the right values. What the programs have in common that make them different from welfare is the beneficiaries contribute to them and they don't reward undesirable individual or social behavior. They don't encourage dependency. And if the changes we envision happen, individuals and families will have greater freedom to choose how to care for their health and plan for their retirement years.

[sangoo]

Still the fact remains this country won't be turned around on a dime. Its slow, hard work reducing the deficit and taming the monster called government

Why do we have to assume that? We have a President who could, if he wanted to, enforce the law on illegal immigration, work to get rid of the education department, cut spending, etc....But he chooses to show is big government, socialist side. He thumbs his nose at his conservative base and panders to the left.

[RJCogburn]

"If Clinton had..."

If Clinton had told us a big program would cost $400 billion and then less than two months later told us it would cost 30% more, we say he lied.

Guess what?
http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/f-news/1068912/posts

[chris1]

You are playing word games. You know full well what I am talking about and care to ignore that which is not comfortable for you. Clinton was the snake of all snakes. But the fact of the matter is that the GOP at least had some fight in them over the massive increase in the size scope and role of the government. Because it is the GOP, some turn a blind eye, like the kool aide drinkers we laugh at. W has done some great things, but they are comprimised by his immigration plan, medicare plan, etc. If he forcefully came out for border control and deportation of criminal illegals after 09/11/01, the country would have been behind him, if he forcefully advocated for fiscal common sense, the country would be behind him. But, his failures on these issues will hurt his chances at re-election.

[RunningJoke]

It is better to have a Republican Congress and a Democratic President than Lyndon Baines Bush in the White House. Conservatives for Gridlock.

The penultimate paragraph, yeah great we must stop socialism, like "no child left behind", "Prescription Drug Benefit", "funding of the NEA", and "Steel Tariffs". Wake up Coppertop!

The Bush family talks the talk of conservatives but walk the walk of liberals.

[goldstategop]

A lot of you guys would say Bush is a liberal who talks like a conservative.

[zook]

"If Clinton had told us a big program would cost $400 billion and then less than two months later told us it would cost 30% more, we say he lied."

Absolutely untrue, at least for serious people, absent his overall pattern of lies and deception. By your standard, every president in my memory, including Reagan, would have to be called a liar.

You have to be a political hermit to buy that logic.

[NittanyLion]

With regard to domestic spending, I think it's time conservatives faced reality. The GOP will not reduce the size of government because, in general, party members don't hold that as a principle. They may claim they do, but their actions demonstrate otherwise. The GOP could have 70 Senators and we'd still see government grow.

[RunningJoke]

"Absolutely untrue, at least for serious people, absent his overall pattern of lies and deception. By your standard, every president in my memory, including Reagan, would have to be called a liar."

Welcome to Politics 101.

[chris1]

I hate to say this, but I know of many seniors who abose the medicare program and go to the doctors like you and I go to the bathroom. I am not saying that they should not get taken care of, but there are no incentives for productive use of resources and finding alternatives to massive drug prescriptions. I grandfolks are on something like 30 drugs by now. It is crazy.

[hoosiermama]

BUMP!

[zook]

"You are playing word games."

I'm applying logic and reasoning. It is not because Bush is GOP that I support him. I support him because he is the first president since Reagan to truly realize that we are at war with terrorism and terrorist states. I support him because I believe he is a man of deep faith, conviction, and honesty.

Do I agree with everything Bush proposes? No. But Bush's task is to try to be a president for all Americans, not just for the extreme right wing.

[goldstategop]

Interesting you should say that. Another perspective that echoes the feelings of many on this forum is offered by Kyle (smart kid from Okie who is a conservative) Williams. Judge for yourself:

It's sad to say, but the president is a lost cause for conservatives. There's no reason for any of us to have hope that he will do anything for the conservative ideology, except water it down with socialist ideas.

When we ask for conservative progress, he gives us socialist programs promoting morality. When we ask for immigration reform, we're given a "temporary workers program."

But he's better than Michael Dukakis, so we should all rejoice.

[zook]

"Welcome to Politics 101."

Tell it to the political hermits posting here who expect Bush to be Ba Au H2O.

[RJCogburn]

"If Clinton had told us a big program would cost $400 billion and then less than two months later told us it would cost 30% more, we say he lied."

Absolutely untrue

Okay, then we'd say he was incompetent.

Do you have a better descriptor?

[NittanyLion]

Absolutely untrue, at least for serious people, absent his overall pattern of lies and deception.

I'm not sure how we could reconcile the facts with your claim in this instance. The program is only a few months old, and already its estimated cost has been readjusted by 33%. Is it likely (or even possible) the administration didn't have this information at the time the bill was being debated? I, for one, doubt it. I suspect they used the most conservative estimate out there instead of providing the range across which the cost might run. In my book, that's irresponsible - I could be fired if I pulled a stunt like that in my line of work.

BTW, how's Happy Valley?

[zook]

"Okay, then we'd say he was incompetent."

And Reagan was incompetent because he promised to abolish the Dept. of Education, but did not? As I said, every president in my memory would be judged as "incompetent" by your standard.

Come on. We gauge "incompetence" within an overall context. Read my posts above and you'll see the context in which I'm judging Bush.

[steve50]

Just what do you think Jean F. Cheri is going to do as President. Take up knitting needles? He'll make President Bush look like a conservative when he unveils his budget.

But by then the republicans in Congress will have heard a message they can't ignore. To reward Bush for his actions is to destroy the conservative principles of the party. No telling what this man will do as a lame duck.

[Jaguar Girl]

"Conservatives who decide to give up and stay at home will be aiding and abetting the enemies of freedom."

As a conservative I will never give up on the Republican Party.It does not mean I approve of all that has been done in the past, now or in the future. That part breaks my heart ( the disappointments ) but the answer is not to leave the Party nor to stay home and not vote.